Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

U.S. Bans Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes from Operating Labs for Two Years

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 280 posts

Re: U.S. Bans Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes from Operating Labs for Two Years

#261

Post by scott_s »

kbenson wrote: post #259
scott_s wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was part of my point, but not the main part. My main point is that Holmes and Madoff are potentially different - that I think Madoff is probably a sociopath is only part of that. That is hard to objectively establish. But what is objectively established is that Madoff knew what he was doing. I am unsure if Holmes is knowingly scamming people. My main concern with the comment I replied to is that, based on my readi…

Sure, I got that. I misspoke a bit when I saw "that was his point". You used the sociopath statement not as the main point, but to drive that point. Not knowing (even possibly), is much different than definitely knowing and not caring. It's a double edged sword, in that the label quickly illustrates the difference you are pointing out, but then you have to deal with people focusing on the word and not the point. That…

Oh, I wasn't correcting you! Just re-iterating in my own words what my intentions were. And, agreed.

Re: U.S. Bans Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes from Operating Labs for Two Years

#262

Post by garyrob »

tps5 wrote: post #245
gnaritas wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but I think people on the internet throw out the "sociopath" label way too freely. Not an argument. > And I certainly wouldn't apply it to Bernie Madoff or Holmes based on what I know of their situations. Not an argument. If you're going to disagree with someone, generally, some logic as to why is useful, not just "I don't agree". Madoff certainly deserves that label, he ruined lives by running the biggest investme…

I would stay away from the term sociopath because whether or not someone is a sociopath depends entirely on their feelings. And it's quite clearly impossible to know the emotions of another person and whether they experienced guilt/remorse/regret/empathy for their actions, regardless of their facial expressions. I've also read the Nuremberg Diary. That book, and Hannah Arendt's famous phrase "banality of evil" have i…

Psychopaths actually have reduced activity in the orbital cortex of the brain, which can be objectively measured. Not sure if it's a feature of all true psychopaths, but it's apparently quite common.

http://www.businessinsider.com/what-a-psychopath-brain-looks...

Re: U.S. Bans Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes from Operating Labs for Two Years

#263

Post by csallen »

TillE wrote: post #255
csallen wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless their test involves technology that can lower the uncertainty to acceptable levels, e.g. being able to isolate the blood from certain vessels despite using a prick method. Simply saying that the source is messy is not a proof that it's impossible to work around that.

The source is not merely messy. It's a tiny sample of a fluid which is not absolutely consistent throughout. This is a fundamental problem. You might luck into roughly correct results most of the time, but the basic nature of statistics is against you.

Oh I don't disagree with you at all. But even based on what you said, it's not hard to imagine that it's possible to identify and test some previously unidentified component of said fluid that is consistent throughout.

My point is only that there is no hard theory decrying this to be impossible in the same way that, say, computer scientists can prove that a problem is NP-complete.

Re: U.S. Bans Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes from Operating Labs for Two Years

#264

Post by emiliobumachar »

ryporter wrote: post #87
kumarski wrote: post #62

I've talked to over 100 hematologists. This business, didn't pass a basic litmus test of objective criticism from people who work in the space. There seems to be this bravado among founders who believe they're sticking it to all the people who say something's amiss. I think if there's an elephant in the room though, it probably should be assassinated with a huge body of transparent evidence.

To be fair, that is how innovation occurs. There are many examples of "ridiculous" ideas that ended being wildly successful. Where would Elon Musk be if he listened to all of the incumbents who said that his ideas would never work? Obviously, the putative innovators massively failed in this case, but I don't think that the outcome proves that their original idea was fatally flawed, or at least that it wasn't worth at…

The bulk of criticism of Theranos is not for seeking a hugely ambitious goal and failing.

It's for hiding the failure and pushing the failed technology to patients outside the scope of an experiment.

Re: U.S. Bans Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes from Operating Labs for Two Years

#265

Post by drjesusphd »

atroyn wrote: post #247
drjesusphd wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess I'm thinking about Lockheed Martin and EMC2. They're both taking taxpayer money for discredited approaches (mirror and cusp confinement, respectively).

What are your thoughts on Helion?

Don't know much about it I'm afraid.

Re: U.S. Bans Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes from Operating Labs for Two Years

#266

Post by jasonlaramburu »

gmarx wrote: post #254
jasonlaramburu wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think so. As I understood, their core value proposition was that they could deliver detailed, accurate blood test results with just a few drops of blood and their proprietary analysis technology. In reality, they used traditional venous draws (way more than a few drops), and competitors' systems to deliver test results of lower accuracy than their competitors. If they were really 'doing it by hand,' they woul…

Not so (if I understand your point). They were using the competitor systems on a few drops of blood. I read they were diluting the blood and then correcting the results. This is doing the same thing without the tech in the hopes that they would eventually make their tech work

Interesting, didn't realize they were using finger pricks (few drops of blood) on machines designed for venous draws. I guess the important point is that whatever they tried didn't deliver real value to their users (i.e. they did not 'make something people want').

Re: U.S. Bans Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes from Operating Labs for Two Years

#267

Post by [deleted] »

oldmanjay wrote: post #221
gnaritas wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but I think people on the internet throw out the "sociopath" label way too freely. Not an argument. > And I certainly wouldn't apply it to Bernie Madoff or Holmes based on what I know of their situations. Not an argument. If you're going to disagree with someone, generally, some logic as to why is useful, not just "I don't agree". Madoff certainly deserves that label, he ruined lives by running the biggest investme…

What definition of "sociopath" are you using here? How do you third-hand diagnose a man as completely lacking in empathy? Can we somehow use this skill for good instead of boring internet commentary?

[deleted]

Re: U.S. Bans Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes from Operating Labs for Two Years

#268

Post by gnaritas »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #227
gnaritas wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but I think people on the internet throw out the "sociopath" label way too freely. Not an argument. > And I certainly wouldn't apply it to Bernie Madoff or Holmes based on what I know of their situations. Not an argument. If you're going to disagree with someone, generally, some logic as to why is useful, not just "I don't agree". Madoff certainly deserves that label, he ruined lives by running the biggest investme…

Declaring that someone must clearly have no empathy because they hurt people they didn't even know is also not an argument.

Actually it is an argument as that's one of the defining characteristics of the condition, it's not a great argument because I don't know how he feels, but it's more than just "I disagree" which is no argument at all. In any case, I'm not the OP, I didn't call him a sociopath, I merely said he deserved the label.

Re: U.S. Bans Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes from Operating Labs for Two Years

#269

Post by gnaritas »

oldmanjay wrote: post #221
gnaritas wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but I think people on the internet throw out the "sociopath" label way too freely. Not an argument. > And I certainly wouldn't apply it to Bernie Madoff or Holmes based on what I know of their situations. Not an argument. If you're going to disagree with someone, generally, some logic as to why is useful, not just "I don't agree". Madoff certainly deserves that label, he ruined lives by running the biggest investme…

What definition of "sociopath" are you using here? How do you third-hand diagnose a man as completely lacking in empathy? Can we somehow use this skill for good instead of boring internet commentary?

I'm not third hand diagnosing anyone, I'm not diagnosing anyone, and I'm not the one who even brought up the term sociopath as I'm not the OP; I simply said he deserves the label given what he's done. So if you're bored, feel free to go somewhere else.

Re: U.S. Bans Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes from Operating Labs for Two Years

#270

Post by Dylan16807 »

gnaritas wrote: post #268
Dylan16807 wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Declaring that someone must clearly have no empathy because they hurt people they didn't even know is also not an argument.

Actually it is an argument as that's one of the defining characteristics of the condition, it's not a great argument because I don't know how he feels, but it's more than just "I disagree" which is no argument at all. In any case, I'm not the OP, I didn't call him a sociopath, I merely said he deserved the label.

How much empathy do you have for the hundreds of people dying in car crashes each day? Not much, or you'd be crippled. It is ridiculous to look at low empathy for strangers and declare no empathy for anyone. So you don't even reach the prerequisite that would let you start to talk about the manifestations of sociopathy.
Post reply on HN